Interesting: teachers misconception about state school pupils ending in top Unis

[camaleon]

"Fewer than half of teachers at state schools would advise pupils to apply to top universities, a new study shows - but many do not realise that a majority of Oxbridge students come from state schools"

Article here

I spent a lot of time in my challenging, lower than national average school trying to make my students believe they are just as good as everyone else. A girl who got 2A* and an A at A level couldn't get her head around the idea that this put her right in the top flight. It's a heart breaking thing to watch children denigrate their own considerable achievement because the school they go to is held in low esteem by other people.

Way to go, TFM. Though arguably there are more important things than going to the 'right' uni anyway - there are few jobs these days you can only access from an RG uni.

Personal qualities count more than quals in the long run, anyway.

Not if you want to be doctor...

Is that limited to RG? As I said, a few areas where it still applies - but v few.

But don't get me wrong - I'm all for encouraging kids to see all doors as open...

BAB, in the context of the article, Oxbridge is not being used as shorthand for the Russell Group.

There are a lot of different issues around students being given poor advice about which A levels to do, where to apply and so on. But I think the Oxbridge issue is somewhat different.

I also think part of it is that we spend years encouraging students to believe that comprehensive education is the best system, and then suddenly when it comes to university we start telling them that they should be segregated by ability from other university students. Perhaps having been educated in comprehensive schools they see going to a university with a comprehensive HE intake as something that appeals to them as a way of learning.

"And the fact that Oxbridge is still seen as the best even though the best students are often elsewhere demonstrates what a lot of snobbery is bound up in our perceptions of those institutions"

Seahouse, the fact that they are seen as teh best is linked to league tables, and posistions in league tables are linked to the fact that the factors measuring who is best are decided by Oxbridge Universities. So, for instance, they do not include 'added value' by the University at all. They value factors that Oxbridge Universities excel at.

Well, tht's silly then - of course more southern sts apply to Oxbridge. Sme as more Northern ones apply to Northern unis - they know them, have family members there or from there, it's cheaper esp ith increasing fees etc.
My northern dh went to a northern uni as did virtually all his northern schoolfriends from northern comp. It's not due to some lack of aspiration, it's just what was around. His mum made it as far south as Birmingham - he had no southern role models. But why should a student who goes to Edinburgh, say rather than Oxford, be viewed as if they qere some poor relation who lacked aspiration? That's just silly.

Is that not contradictory though? How can we tell a student that they are capable regardless of their school and then tell them that they should be choosing a university because of its position in the league tables?

I am simply suggesting that we accept that very capable people thrive in a variety of different universities and schools, and that going to the institution that is highest in the league table at any level doesn't make you as an individual more or less capable when you leave than somebody who went elsewhere.

Sorry, xpost with BAB.

It is limited to people with good qualifications!

My students are afraid of being turned down, not of going. They din't think they are good enough, because they hear so often that they go to an inferior school. They don't of course. Our bright, hardworking students get the results they should get. I'm proud of that and I'm desperate for them to be proud of that too. Ironically of course it could well count in their favour...

I agree BAB. DS is in a Northern grammar, and although I think they had six this year go to Oxbridge, in general the students apply to Northern universities. It isn't to do with lack of aspirations.

We can tell our students, quite correctly, that professionally it may well matter where they went to university. Rightly if wrongly. That they had no choice where they went to school, but they do have a choice about university (the top attainers), and they should probably take that into account.

Yes, we should tell them that. But rather than have so much news and government concern (at least from the previous government) about why people don't want to go to Oxbridge, it would be good to have a campaign, particularly for entrance to public sector jobs. The government could then treat graduates more equally, rather than perpetuating the situation where it is preferable when entering a profession to have attended Oxford rather than Newcastle. If the prejudice against other decent universities was reduced, there wouldn't be a career advantage to an Oxbridge degree and we could stop strong arming students into applying.

You daft buggers -

1. this is still massively disproportionate - public schools educate about 6% of kids. That this still fills up half of oxbridge is shocking
2. The 54% who are not from public schools are NOT all from state schools. that is BS - many are from international schools, overseas fee payers, expensively home tutored children of the super rich and mature students.
3. The reason Oxbridge think you won't notice is because of their misunderstanding of the ability of 'non-standard' population
4. The best students do NOT go to Oxbridge - at best, the best of those who apply get there, but even that is suspect.
5. Having recruited students from Oxbridge AND having had non-oxbridge students recruited from me to Oxbridge research I DO know what I am talking about
6. A thick public school kid has a higher chance of getting into oxbridge than a very intelligent state school kid (just run the numbers).
7. If oxbridge are so good, why do they need to have such a 'selective' intake? Surely such excellence would add value to anyone... (it doesn't by the way - it adds more value to a state school kid than a public school kid.. for the 'thick public school kid' bias named above).

Oh and for the record funding is not related to quality - it is related to funding - more funding, more research, more research=higher publishing rate, higher publishing rate=more citations which are used to justify the allocation of funding.

(not to mention the oxbridge editorial and peer review bias in top journals..!).

But Oxbridge teach differently. So it will never be the same as Newcastle.

I knew plenty of Northern Students at Oxbridge. It often feels as though half of Surrey go to Durham, and I met plenty at Aberdeen. I really don't get the North South divide, and I would strongly advise my children to go away from home properly.

I think it's ingrained in society, not just schools and teachers. Barely anyone at my DC's school left the area.

There's only so much the government could do. If you end up in an international field (academia, some sciences....) 'Oxbridge' is the British brand which is recognised, even if it may not actually be the best place for your specialism.

Not all state schools are so discouraging. I've a niece at a comp who, having secured a fabulous set of GCSEs is hoping for Cambridge. She thinks it will be an advantage to her application that she comes from a pretty normal comp - I don't know if she's right.

I went to a comp in a very poor area. The area I grew up was featured in an expose of the poorest area in Britain on the TV. My parents were very motivated about my education and encouraged me loads. I went to uni. But no teacher ever suggested this and no teacher ever mentioned oxford or cambridge as a possibility.

When I looked back I had the grades to get into either of these unis (not saying I would have), but I honestly think the teachers thought a uni like that was not for the likes of me. So I think this survey has a point.

I'm not talking redbrick vs oxbridge. I'm talking Edge Hill vs Newcastle, for example.

Yes Oxbridge teach by magic..

There was the aim higher scheme, but to ne honest that was just about getting dcs into university and Ds was taken to Hatfield for the day. Under the g&t scheme both dcs have got to visit Cambridge a few times, which was much more inspiring.

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but I have known people from northern state comps choose not to go to Oxbridge (after interviews).

I actually think it very brave to turn down an Oxbridge offer. (Although I suspect the people I know would say they wouldn't have felt comfortable there, and were pushed into it by their teachers)

DH was involved in aimhigher stuff for many years
the residential schools were ONLY open to those whose parents had not attended university
and he (and the local aimhigher team) always encouraged attendees to move away for Uni as the independence is an important part of the experience

he gets the HUGEST kick out of the fact that one of his early kids is now doing a Phd locally having moved away for their science degree

that and he gets undergrads who cannot afford to move away telling him that HE inspired them to do hard degrees at RG Unis
(getting his ego through the front door after those conversations is a nightmare)
BUT
He was the first in his family to go to Uni so KNOWS how they feel.
I was expected to go to Oxford and rebelled!